Are many liberals in god mode?
they think they are god to the world and everything they say and do must be treated as such...if you disagree you are unenlightened and therefore inferior and your view does not matter...
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The anagram of LIBERAL is BRAILLE, a system devised for the blind. I rest my case.
- koalatcomicsLv 71 decade ago
liberals cant understand that jihad wasnt started by us and are no different than the carpetbaggers of the last century...they understand the dislike of war by the american public and feed on it to the downfall of econmics in the society in general. its a power grab and appears to have been temporarily successfull. we, as conservatives, must remain vigilant to call this philosophy what it is, trash, and when it fails return people to the self reliance and lassiez fare government that brought the us this far.
- Anarchy99Lv 71 decade ago
God mode is a conservative response,
so if you are asking if liberals are being conservative
- Anonymous1 decade ago
IN THE DELUSIONAL LIBERAL MIND THERE COULD BE NOTHING GREATER THAN THEMSELVES. THIS IS WHY THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH KILLING THE INNOCENT UNBORN!
IT REALLY SHOWS UP WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH A LIB, THEY GET SO BENT OUT OF SHAPE, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH IT!
GET OVER YOURSELF LIBS!!!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
To hell with the tree hugging liberals and to hell with god!
- 1 decade ago
I am an internet god. No question about it.Source(s): never went psycho like a fark mod - eeeeeek never threw countless hissy fits like another fark mod - coo cooooo
- 1 decade ago
[Note: before I begin, any number in parenthesis with a "b." following it, e.g. (76b.) would be taken from that number in the "source" list. The letter b here stands for bibliography. I didn't or don't know of a way to list the bibliography properly in this format so ask for the forgiveness of those reading should they have difficulty with that]
How interesting!?! Everytime I read a question which insults the rights of others to have a point of view, I find myself having to define the terms of the words in the question/statement before I do so.
Let us begin with the term "liberal." In politics over the last 25 years or so, the word "liberal" has come to be thought of as a political insult. It shouldn't be the case however. Liberal became an insult because of the word which was associated with it 25 years ago. 25 years ago we were coming off the presidency of Jimmy Carter, and though Carter actually ended up reducing national debt/GNP ratio (1b.), the actual national debt increased.
Since Carter introduced a number of new government programs (2b.), Ronald Reagan ran on the platform of cutting government spending and not be such a "liberal spender." Carter's programs did cost enormous amounts of tax money and he was in favor of spending this money on helping mainly the homeless and those on welfare, while cutting military spending, spending on federal law enforcement, etc.
The word "liberal" regarding government is defined in the following ways by the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House 2006.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. (3b.) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
It is highly likely the poster is more a liberal than he knows but is using the term the way people have used the word since Carter, and since then has been a politically insulting word. Personally, I would LOVE to be called a liberal--someone who wants to maximize the freedoms of people as long as they don't infringe directly and tangibly upon the rights of another.
By "god mode," I can't say for certain, but it usually means dictating to others and controlling the way others live. Obviously this is the perfect antonym to the word "liberal." Dictators live in God Mode. Those who support tolerance believe in personal liberty and therefore, by definition, about the only "god mode" they could be accused of would be "controlling the lives of those who would limit the personal freedoms of others," much like the Taliban, the Nazi's, Il Yung Sun, et. al. have done in the past.
So, to look at the question above, we have to ask, "are those who want to maximize our freedoms and guarantee our freedoms are protected" in "god mode."
I haven't seen even a single action in the past by true liberals (for instance, the libertarian political party, certain Democratic House and Senate members who believe strongly in personal freedoms) which has forced the world to do "everything they say and do." In fact, there isn't a single true liberal who would WANT to do that as it would be in direct opposition to their beliefs.
The most recent examples of people in true God mode would be 1) Osama Bin Laden who believes <paraphrased> everyone in the Western world OR anyone who does not believe in Islammic extremism should be killed.
2) Sadly, George W. Bush, who said "God told me to attack Iraq",(4b.) has sought, along with the Christian extremists aka Christian Evangelicals, to deny personal freedoms (anti-choice, anti-individual rights to those with sexual preferences not sanctioned by certain volumes of the Christian Bible) to Americans.
3) The Taliban which oppresses women to the point where a man may murder his wife or any other female family member LEGALLY if he deems it necessary or deserved.
Now, of course there are many many others and I could go on for a long time sighting true examples of those who try to operate in "God Mode."
Though the poster uses non-related assumptions (in fact, downright illogical arguments and assumptions) to try to deflect any who would disagree, by claiming
1) those who disagreed were unenlightened. Now, again, the word "enlightened" is frequently and I believe in this case absolutely is linked to some specific spiritual belief. (5b.) So to him, any who disagree with him necessarily are either in disagreement with his opinions or his spirituality.
Given the definition of the word "liberal" (3b.), this very statement in and of itself is an indication of someone functioning in "god mode."
What can be determined about this person psychologically is he really lacks any facts to back up his opinion. You can determine this by his last sentence which, when translated breaks down to an ad-hominem argument. Ad hominems are generally arguments used by those who have run out of factual data. It has always been used by bigger children to put down and insult those who are more intelligent than they are. It is most often used in the middle of a non-structured argument as a decoy to reduce the focus of people on the facts themselves. If someone has run out of facts to back one's case--that is, if all of one's arguments have been defeated, the only place a person can go is to the next step in argument when losing badly. You forget about facts altogether, insult your opponent, and hope the insult is sufficient to make people forget about the weakness of your ccase in the first place and draw attention away from the continuing facts provided by one's opposition.
What is so ridiculous and almost funny about this question and future accusation, is he starts with a belief, but runs out of evidence SO quickly that his first tactic is to turn towards an ad homiem strategy. Truthfully, little else should be needed to show the weakness of this statement, but the word "liberal" has been used as a politically negative buzz word for 25 years now (almost) and THAT simply too much. I felt it time I spoke up and started to do my best to reinform those growing up that a "liberal" is a good thing. They are people who fight for "liberty."
The very etymology of the words liberal, liberation, and liberty have a common source--the latin word "liber" meaning free to the Latin and ME word "līberālis" meaning "of freedom" or "befitting the free" (3b.)
The political noun "liberal" is defined as "(a person belonging to a party) favouring liberty for the individual" (3b.)
So, to finally answer the question, "are many liberals in god mode?" Through pure definition, if liberals WERE in god mode, about the only thing they'd be supporting would be a reduction in the power of politicians to enforce their own beliefs and the power of politicians to dictate exactly what must be done by every individual.
As that is the very antonym of the expression "god mode" we can conclude that not only are most liberals OUT of god mode, but that were a liberal to go INTO god mode, they would no longer be a liberal thus!:
NO! NO LIBERALS ARE IN GOD MODE AT ALL as the two are mutually exclusive states of mind.
Thank you for reading. I hope you enjoyed reading it but most of all, I hope you learned something from this information and enjoyed learning it.
Happy New Year to all!Source(s): (1)http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jc39.... (2) ibid. (3) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal (4) http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2006/04/17/ells... (5) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enlightened